Big Intelligence Primer Home / Learning Modules / Big Intelligence Primer Gear up for the journey How I came to ask “How do we know?” and why you should too 06 min Packing smart: intelligence inventory 12 min Shedding excesses: veils to big intelligence 11 min Shedding excesses: veils to big intelligence 4 questions10 min Basecamp Big Question: Which came first, the “I” or the “U”? 20 min Optional: Big Question Q&A 20 min The Tent: home to meta and possibilities 05 min Skills to build (TO COME) Expanded communication: beyond rationality and sense-making Fitness: being an instrument of language Read the Map: yes, the terrain is real Big Intelligence Primer Back to Course Shedding excesses: veils to big intelligence https://michellemcgee.com/wp-content/uploads/course-bbi/BBI_Shedding%20Excess_rev1.mp4 Supplemental Materials Shedding Excesses Slides Prev Packing smart: intelligence inventory Next Shedding excesses: veils to big intelligence 8 thoughts on “Shedding excesses: veils to big intelligence” Meaning to me is only possible once we have an awareness of our intentions to interpret and perceive it in such a way that aligns with our initial goals. So I agree that it requires some affirmation, declaration, or proof in order to be effective or even to exist at all. Log in to Reply I’d love an example of your process of obtaining meaning if one comes to mind Aimee. I’m curious too what you make of affirmative bias. Does “I agree that [meaning] requires affirmation” mean you don’t see the limitation of meanings built from affirmation or are you just confirming that it is indeed your experience? Log in to Reply This discussion of meaning seems to me similar to Hegel’s Phenomenology (the veils are the phenomenological perception). I understand is not the same but connected to Essence and Appearance, Form and Content. The Being (Dasein) lost in itself unable to communicate. I can see how your work somehow mirror’s Langnan’s, but Lagnan is isolated by his own genius. Very few people would be able to have a conversation at his level. Hence the need to re-educate and connect upon a common language, because once you step out of mainstream academia/science you are alone. The need to transform one-self existentially in order to be able to grasp deeper levels of meaning (the essence). Log in to Reply And as far as what the content I present is similar to… it’s not unlike anything. I enjoy the sense, for instance in what you’ve shared, that it can be mapped to all variety of things, including philosophical analyses. And no doubt some mappings will show more generalizability and/or keenness, when understood through the lens of an existing analysis, than others. Log in to Reply What is your connection with Langan? He’s not my favorite subject, a problem I myself helped create. He makes things harder than they need to be, perhaps so that he can remain the epicenter of his own philosophy. Log in to Reply I don’t have any connection to Langnan but I read an early version of his CTMU and found some of his ideas very useful (but yes, he is clearly very self-centered). Living in the existential underground is very confusing because everyone here speaks their own language (there is no epistemic community) so I am trying to learn yours. I am currently reading your “Notes from the Existential Underground” but it may take me some time…I can see a number of people basically taking on the same problem with different terminology (you, Langnan, Bentov, Goswami, etc). But from my viewpoint this discussion about re-defining the natural sciences is tied to a very personal re-alignment everyone researching this problem needs to do. I think what we are really dealing with is: what is our role as individuals in the emergence of the universe as a self aware being? But my point is that any new language that helps to clarify this process needs to be accessible to the general public, or will have the same fate as contemporary quantum physics. Log in to Reply Well, you can no doubt tell from my paper that I am sympathetic to all who have dared explore the underground! One reason is as you put it, that there’s no single accepted epistemic and that takes a great deal of what you might call inner interdisciplinarity. Where that capacity, like a chameleon, to change epistemic orientation was at one time an advantage, too strong of an attachment to epistemic flexibility is contributing to both self-sabotage and system-sabotage (the system that could actually start to right things) among the very people with the capacity to grasp a coherent solution. It’s why I put this material out. To get people in the underground to consider how to discipline existential/metaphysical concerns without obscuring it with your own knowledge. Unfortunately, many of them are already under the influence of strong-minded fantasizers. I think the need for “personal re-alignment” is a paradox. Is personal alignment to a properly aligned system re-alignment or just becoming connected to the system that you are already perfectly aligned with? That system starts with cosmology, a cosmology that is by its very nature metaphysically robust in a way that modern physics is not capacitated to detect. You might enjoy these… https://soundcloud.com/mkmcgee What kind of (surprising) system is the universe? What fuels the universe, and our curiosity about it? Log in to Reply There’s also a paradox in the disciplined, relational use of ordinary language, which is one principle behind Global Meanings. Unless people are first willing to question and possibly reconfigure the relational ways they use the words, they inevitably encounter an uncomfortable amount of disorientation and shut down processing the “how” information that accompanies it. Log in to Reply Leave a Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.